Category change in the absence of cognitive conflict.

Jared T Ramsburg,Stellan Ohlsson

doi:10.1037/edu0000050

Jared T Ramsburg, Stellan Ohlsson

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000050

Copy DOI

Abstract

The cognitive conflict hypothesis asserts that information that directly contradicts a prior conception is 1 of the prerequisites for conceptual change and other forms of nonmonotonic learning. There have been numerous attempts to support this hypothesis by adding a conflict intervention to learning scenarios with weak outcomes. Outcomes have been inconsistent and various methodological difficulties have prevented a decisive test. We present 3 experiments that demonstrate nonmonotonic category change in the absence of any contradictory or falsifying information in a category learning paradigm called recategorization. The results show that direct falsification is not necessary for nonmonotonic learning in this paradigm, and it might in fact slow the learning process. If the results scale up to more complex learning scenarios, theories of conceptual change need to include cognitive processes that predict change even in the absence of conflict or contradiction. The resubsumption theory is summarized as 1 example of such a theory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Highlights

Category Change in the Absence of Cognitive Conflict Learning that adds new knowledge to the learner’s memory with little or no change in prior knowledge is monotonic
Importance Ratings An analysis of the importance ratings before categorizing the bacteria was conducted using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
A two-way ANOVA was used to examine whether there were any differences between groups in how they rated the bacteria features at the conclusion of the re-categorization task

Summary

Introduction

Category Change in the Absence of Cognitive Conflict Learning that adds new knowledge to the learner’s memory with little or no change in prior knowledge is monotonic. The multiple knowledge-as-theory perspectives hypothesize different conceptual change processes, but they share the principle that those processes are triggered by negative cognitive outcomes. The latter include direct contradiction or refutation by someone else (e.g., teacher, text, etc.); inability to explain a phenomenon; mismatches between current beliefs and direct observation; unfulfilled expectations; failure to solve a relevant problem; and so on. She found that there are cases in which inducing a cognitive conflict produces positive benefits, those benefits are typically smaller than expected or desired, and in the majority of studies there is no measurable benefit from the cognitive conflict intervention She wrote that “...the most outstanding result of the studies using the cognitive conflict strategy is the lack of efficacy for students to achieve a strong restructuring and, a deep understanding of the new information” The relative lack of effect of such conflicts across a broad range of studies falsifies the cognitive conflict hypothesis: The difficulty of conceptual change must reside elsewhere than in conflict, or rather the lack thereof, between misconceptions and normatively correct subject matter

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion